"And if it is illegal or borderline according to, say, netherlands, swiss, or german law, is it appropriate to do it in countries where the law is less developed? " As said Kevin, it is impossible to respect the law of all countries in every country (Wikipedia already fails at that in its current state by the way, with or without Wikipedia Zero). So no we cannot "just abstain from any activity which might be perceived as illegal somewhere". After that, are you suggesting we should apply the laws of some "developed" countries to all countries and just ignore the others, this is way more morally wrong in my opinion. That being said, the law on net neutrality you cited applies to ISP, which Wikipedia Zero or the WMF isn't, so it doesn't apply to it. But of course, we as a community and the WMF should still keep high ethical and moral standards. JP Beland aka Amqui 2013/8/26, Andre Engels <andreengels(a)gmail.com>om>:

On 26/08/2013 18:14, Martijn Hoekstra wrote: Wikipedia Zero seeks to increase (free) access to one of our project. If we don't think that's a good idea, what the heck are we doing running the project in the first place? KTC -- Katie Chan Any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the view of any organisation the author is associated with or employed by. Experience is a good school but the fees are high. - Heinrich Heine

On Aug 26, 2013, at 10:42 AM, JP Béland <lebo.beland(a)gmail.com> wrote: I believe a nonstandard interpretation of net neutrality is being used here. It's intended - as originally posed - to prevent a service provider from advantaging their own bundled services and disadvantage independent services via tariff structure. What competitors for Wikipedia exist? And to the extent there are such, are we associated with this provider in some way that causes us to be their service in some preferred way to their or our benefit? What benefit do we get? Sent from Kangphone

It was not rhetorical, but you missed the point. Net neutrality is an issue because service providers (can / may / often do) become a local monopoly of sorts. Monopilies are not necessarily bad (how many water and natural gas line providers can you choose from? how many road networks?) but are generally felt to be bad if they enable the monopolist to leverage themselves into other markets. With regards to network neutrality, the problem is if the provider uses their network monopoly to encourage the customers to use their (or their preferred, with some sort of mutual advantage) search engine, email service, etc., or discourage use of an alternative streaming media service, and issues of the like. Again: with Wikipedia, we do not have particular mutually beneficial relationships which this would be encouraging, and the service provider isn't really in a position to damage a Wikipedia competitor by doing this, as far as I can see. One can argue that even a free (to use, contribute, participate), functionally monopolized, public service organization could benefit somehow and the ISP could benefit somehow, and that the strict terms of the particular law in question might come into play. However, from a moral stance, the underlying goal of network neutrality seems unharmed by this, in any realistic or reasonable manner. Your interpretation seems excessively legalistic rather than factually or morally based; while it may be that we should avoid even trivial legalistic issues, we do not as a project make special efforts to comply with 180+ countries laws (other than copyright issues, and "free" definitions for Commons, that I can see). If you can explain a manner in which the underlying monopoly / advantage issue IS a problem here, please point it out. If there is one that I do not see then that forms a valid reason to reconsider. On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Martijn Hoekstra < martijnhoekstra(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

If customers would be signing up for access to the net, and if the ISP would charge differently whether they access Wikipedia or whether they access Facebook, yes, that would be a violation of net neutrality. But in this case we are not talking about providing access to the net. We are talking about providing access to Wikipedia. That's like saying "printing out an article of Wikipedia and giving it to a student is a violation of net neutrality because we didn't print out the rest of the Web and gave it to them too". I still think the question "does Wikipedia zero violate net neutrality" is simply a categorical error (i.e. it errs in the sense that the categories in the question do not match), and nothing I have seen convinced me otherwise so far. P.S., and just a sidenote: Britannica did not loose most of its reach due to Wikipedia, but most of its business crumbled due to Encarta and cheap CD-ROM based encyclopedias. When Wikipedia appeared in 2001, Encyclopedias were already in a dismal state. 2013/8/27 Robert Rohde &lt;rarohde(a)gmail.com&gt; -- Project director Wikidata Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://wikimedia.de Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.

2013/8/27 Federico Leva (Nemo) &lt;nemowiki(a)gmail.com&gt; Exactly. Neither is Wikipedia Zero an ISP, which is why the analogy does work. :) Denny

Denny Vrandečić, 27/08/2013 13:32: Sure, but ISP conducting Wikipedia Zero programs are. :) WMF is just facilitating the activities being speculated about as potentially illegal in some countries, I don't think anyone here suggested that WMF is breaching the law. The whole thread is rather speculative of course; perhaps an analogous question would be whether it would be appropriate for a WMF grant to fund an activity e.g. in France which would be illegal in Germany. WMF did and does force (some) entities in other countries to follow (some?) USA laws, out of moral or legal reasons. All this just to say that the question of the original poster should not be considered an attack... Nemo

This is a huge question and problem, however: Andreas: If you view Wikipedia / WMF projects getting very slightly preferred net access as the primary barrier to WMF / Wikipedia not edging towards an open information monopoly, I object. The primary barrier is that nobody has proposed a more functional, feasible model and launched a project to implement that better model. No matter what happens with network access, that does not change the unrelated entry barrier, which is at the conceptual level. Us not taking advantage of network opportunities does not change that, it just degrades our ability to deliver to our existing mission. If you feel that the WMF should do its job worse, to enable alternatives to flourish, I disagree. On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Andreas Kolbe &lt;jayen466(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 10:13 PM, George Herbert > &lt;george.herbert(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote;wrote: > > > It was not rhetorical, but you missed the point. > > > > Net neutrality is an issue because service providers (can / may / often > do) > > become a local monopoly of sorts. Monopilies are not necessarily bad > (how > > many water and natural gas line providers can you choose from? how many > > road networks?) but are generally felt to be bad if they enable the > > monopolist to leverage themselves into other markets. > > > > > Of course there is a desire to leverage the Foundation into other markets. > Wikivoyage is one example, Wikidata is another. The latter in particular is > envisaged to play a central role as a global information hub. > > The other day, Jimmy Wales said, "We are a start-up in stealth mode."[1] > > > > > With regards to network neutrality, the problem is if the provider uses > > their network monopoly to encourage the customers to use their (or their > > preferred, with some sort of mutual advantage) search engine, email > > service, etc., or discourage use of an alternative streaming media > service, > > and issues of the like. > > > > > How is this not happening when one service is free and the others are not? > Wikipedia is well known (and quite highly regarded, rightly so) for > providing up-to-the-minute coverage of breaking news. When something like > the Japan earthquake happens, or someone like Michael Jackson dies, many > people check Wikipedia to see the latest update. That means they do not go > to, say, CNN. Wikipedia may *cite* CNN, but it inevitably takes away some > of CNN's page views. > > Again, IIRC, Jimbo proudly said at Wikimania that Wikipedia gets more page > views than the world's top-20 or so newspapers together. And he suggested > that he might like to set up a semi-crowdsourced journalism project to > compete against traditional news outlets. > > > > > Again: with Wikipedia, we do not have particular mutually beneficial > > relationships which this would be encouraging, and the service provider > > isn't really in a position to damage a Wikipedia competitor by doing > this, > > as far as I can see. > > > > > See above. > > > > > One can argue that even a free (to use, contribute, participate), > > functionally monopolized, public service organization could benefit > somehow > > and the ISP could benefit somehow, and that the strict terms of the > > particular law in question might come into play. > > > > However, from a moral stance, the underlying goal of network neutrality > > seems unharmed by this, in any realistic or reasonable manner. Your > > interpretation seems excessively legalistic rather than factually or > > morally based; while it may be that we should avoid even trivial > legalistic > > issues, we do not as a project make special efforts to comply with 180+ > > countries laws (other than copyright issues, and "free" definitions for > > Commons, that I can see). > > > > > > > If you can explain a manner in which the underlying monopoly / advantage > > issue IS a problem here, please point it out. If there is one that I do > > not see then that forms a valid reason to reconsider. > > > > > Here is one that makes me uneasy: Wikimedia projects are particularly > vulnerable to manipulation – look at how long Qworty was allowed to do what > he did,[2] look at the plastic surgery (and likely sockpuppeting) case > presently at AN/I,[3] the Arnie Draiman story,[4] the Klee Irwin[5] or > Monsanto[6] articles, or indeed any of a good number of arbitration cases > commenting on neutrality, BLP violations etc. > > In light of that vulnerability, the idea of making crowdsourced Wikimedia > projects stewards of the world's information, to the detriment of > professionally published and edited news and reference sources, seems to > have some obvious drawbacks. And the higher the stakes are, the more > concerted efforts at manipulation will be. In Wikimedia's case, such > efforts can be made anonymously. > > News reporting and information providers have always been biased. But it is > good to be able to read both The Guardian and The Telegraph. Monopolisation > means that you get only one or the other. And while we know the biases of > The Guardian or The Telegraph, and can compensate for them, with Wikimedia > information the consumer never knows the bias of the person who last edited > a page or data record. > > Andreas > > [1] > > http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/wikipedia-wants-yo… > > [2] > > http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/revenge_ego_and_the_corruption_of_wikipedia/ > > [3] > > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notic… > > [4] http://www.haaretz.com/news/features/.premium-1.530285 > > [5] http://wikipediocracy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Klee-Irwin.gif > > [6] http://wikipediocracy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/monsanto.gif > > > > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Martijn Hoekstra < > > martijnhoekstra(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > > > > > On Aug 26, 2013 7:53 PM, "George William Herbert" < > > > george.herbert(a)gmail.com&gt; > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 26, 2013, at 10:42 AM, JP Béland &lt;lebo.beland(a)gmail.com&gt; > wrote: > > > > > > > > > 2013/8/26, Martijn Hoekstra &lt;martijnhoekstra(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: > > > > >> On Aug 26, 2013 6:30 PM, "JP Béland" &lt;lebo.beland(a)gmail.com&gt; > wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> "And if it is illegal or borderline according to, say, > > > > >>> netherlands, swiss, or german law, is it appropriate to do it in > > > > >>> countries where the law is less developed? " > > > > >>> > > > > >>> As said Kevin, it is impossible to respect the law of all > countries > > > in > > > > >>> every country (Wikipedia already fails at that in its current > state > > > by > > > > >>> the way, with or without Wikipedia Zero). So no we cannot "just > > > > >>> abstain from any > > > > >>> activity which might be perceived as illegal somewhere". After > > that, > > > > >>> are you suggesting we should apply the laws of some "developed" > > > > >>> countries to all countries and just ignore the others, this is > way > > > > >>> more morally wrong in my opinion. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> That being said, the law on net neutrality you cited applies to > > ISP, > > > > >>> which Wikipedia Zero or the WMF isn't, so it doesn't apply to it. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> But of course, we as a community and the WMF should still keep > high > > > > >>> ethical and moral standards. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> JP Beland > > > > >>> aka Amqui > > > > >> > > > > >> I do think there is some merit in the net neutrality argument, at > > > least > > > > >> sufficiently so to be open to discussion on whether or not > offering > > > > >> Wikipedia Zero is a good thing. It comes down to the question if > we > > > believe > > > > >> that having a walled garden variety of internet consisting only of > > > > >> Wikipedia for free, and with that undermining the market position > > for > > > a > > > > >> paid, open internet is a net positive. I'm inclined to say it is, > > but > > > the > > > > >> opposite position, though counter-intuitive, is pretty defensible. > > > > >> > > > > >> -Martijn > > > > > > > > > > "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share > > in > > > > > the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment." > > > > > (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vision) > > > > > > > > > > I agree with you that it is good to discuss about it. The real > > > > > question we have to ask is what between Wikipedia Zero giving free > > > > > access to Wikipedia or avoiding that for net neutrality and not > > > > > undermining the market position for a paid open internet is getting > > us > > > > > closer to our vision. > > > > > > > > > > JP Béland > > > > > aka Amqui > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe a nonstandard interpretation of net neutrality is being > used > > > here. > > > > > > > > It's intended - as originally posed - to prevent a service provider > > from > > > advantaging their own bundled services and disadvantage independent > > > services via tariff structure. > > > > > > > > What competitors for Wikipedia exist? > > > > > > > > And to the extent there are such, are we associated with this > provider > > in > > > some way that causes us to be their service in some preferred way to > > their > > > or our benefit? What benefit do we get? > > > > > > We get a wider readership, at least in the short term. Why else would > we > > be > > > doing this? Or was the question rhetorical, as the answer was rather > > > obvious to me. If it was, I don't understand the point you were trying > to > > > make with it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent from Kangphone > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list > > > > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > > > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list > > > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > -george william herbert > > george.herbert(a)gmail.com > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list > > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 2:05 AM, George Herbert &lt;george.herbert(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Good point. So the question you are asking is "How can we legalize Wikipedia Zero in all countries and avoid such a discussion in future?". What do you think of doing the following: First, WMF should declare officially if it wants to follow net neutrality or not. This eases the future design of offerings. And it facilitates dealing with net neutral borderline countries, like China. "we like net neutrality, but we do think it does not apply for our own contents" might bear a reputational risk, and therefor impact donors money inflow, weaken negotiation position. Essential is that this does _not_ mean "promote net neutrality" - which at least i cannot read out of the vision or mission. Second, find a way to legalize Wikipedia Zero. A simple proposal might be a contract in the lines of: "If one reads a Wikipedia article on the mobile device, then he shall get 3 MB free internet traffic for this day." This would have the following advantages: 1. it is a real teaser to people to read wikipedia every day 2. there is no cost trap when clicking out of zero.wikipedia.org. 3. people can really participate in the movement, e.g. read/write emails, facebook groups, read blog.wikimedia.org. 4. mobile applications traffic is included 5. compared to today, the conditions would be simple 6. it is cheaper because no effort goes into separating our contents into zero.wp.org, m.wikipedia.org, etc. Rupert

Wikimedia movement and the WMF are not advocates for net neutrality, but for free access to knowledge for everybody. Sure we want to respect legal, moral and ethical standards while doing so, but the only arguments I`ve read here where Wikipedia Zero could be at the inverse of those standards is because it may give WMF an unfair advantage over its competitors. From the moral point of view a lot of people claimed to use in this thread, you have to ask yourself what brings more "good" in providing free access to Wikipedia or avoiding to give "ourselves" an unfair competitive advantage... Why not let WMF competitors decide about that, because I'm sure not many for-profit entreprises will do any actions against WMF because it facilitates, through non-financial partnerships with ISPs, free access to Wikipedia in countries where poverty is important. JP Béland aka Amqui 2013/8/27, Andreas Kolbe &lt;jayen466(a)gmail.com&gt;om>:

On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 9:17 PM, George Herbert &lt;george.herbert(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote;wrote: Well, you asked, below: [1] ---o0o--- And to the extent there are such, are we associated with this provider in some way that causes us to be their service in some preferred way to their or our benefit? What benefit do we get? ---o0o--- I was answering your question. Andreas [1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-August/127746.html